How should the US respond to sanctions?

The European Union on Thursday asked the World Trade Organization for the right to impose trade sanctions worth up to $12 billion annually on the United States in retaliation for illegal U.S. subsidies to planemaker Boeing.

The request, which is the largest penalty ever sought from the WTO, is the latest legal move in what is the world's biggest trade dispute and one of the longest.

It depends on the sanctions and the effect it would have. If it would devastate our economy and the sanctions were designed to hurt our defenses to make us ripe for take over, there is only one right response, the destruction of those that seek to take us over.

It depends on the sanctions and the effect it would have. If it would devastate our economy and the sanctions were designed to hurt our defenses to make us ripe for take over, there is only one right response, the destruction of those that seek to take us over.

It depends on the sanctions and the effect it would have. If it would devastate our economy and the sanctions were designed to hurt our defenses to make us ripe for take over, there is only one right response, the destruction of those that seek to take us over.

So if our sanctions on Iran were imposed on us, do you think military action would be justified?

So if our sanctions on Iran were imposed on us, do you think military action would be justified?

I think it depends. Iran is trading with others that will trade. They also don't have the power (maybe) to strike. It's like a little guy attacking a big bullie. Now, if the little guy has a gun, then it might even it out a bit.

A sanction is a hostile action that leads its victims to become more independent and possibly more likely to do business more with others that don't sanction. (that's why sanctions are not profitable) But to claim a sanction to be completely unjust is to claim the production, of whomever is sanctioning you, as your own. We don't own those people's wealth or production. It is their choice to do business with us.

It depends on the sanctions and the effect it would have. If it would devastate our economy and the sanctions were designed to hurt our defenses to make us ripe for take over, there is only one right response, the destruction of those that seek to take us over.

It amazes me some people don't see it this way. (I believe you hit the nail on the head on how our sanctions affect a nation) Someone previously stated that it may depend on whether or not they 'convince' (extort, 'persuade') other nations not to trade may affect the perception of whether or not they are acts of war. It very well might, but rest assured should we be sanctioned as countries we have sanctioned have been (not a possibility, with current situations I know) we would probably declare a war.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

Originally Posted by AuH20

In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.

Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

Do you not see the difference between us imposing sanctions on a particular country while using political leverage and foreign aid to 'persuade' other countries to do the same and a small (sovereign, I would like to remind) nation imposing sanctions on us? I need not Rand Paul explanations on sanctions. They further encourage aggression, (which otherwise may have been simmered down through diplomacy) they strengthen the country's political class by way of people relying more on them for everyday necessities as well as through a sense of false nationalism, they ultimately lead to the deaths of many; mainly the elderly and children, they breed blowback from said impoverished kids who grow up fed the opposite of American exceptionalism. (books we may well have supplied, I might add) Simply, it is a foolish foreign policy. The effects are great and not often seen for a period of time.

ETA: Not to mention that Iran is not seeking nuclear warfare capabilities. They are part of the NPT and they have purposes for their admitted nuclear activities. (medical radioisotopes, energy etc.) Also, you can't prove a negative. They say they don't have WMDs, we say they do. What, do we have to invade Iran to determine definitively one way or the other? Yellow cake Uranium rings a bell.

It aint our damn business if they were concentrating U235 for weaponry anyways. Israel is more than capable. The propaganda runs deep... and I'm very much getting tired of debunking it.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

Originally Posted by AuH20

In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.

Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

A government forces a business to stop doing business with a country that it wants to sanction. The sanctioned country does not want to attack the business, they are friendly, it's the government forcing the business.

Do you not see the difference between us imposing sanctions on a particular country while using political leverage and foreign aid to 'persuade' other countries to do the same and a small (sovereign, I would like to remind) nation imposing sanctions on us? I need not Rand Paul explanations on sanctions. They further encourage aggression, (which otherwise may have been simmered down through diplomacy) they strengthen the country's political class by way of people relying more on them for everyday necessities as well as through a sense of false nationalism, they ultimately lead to the deaths of many; mainly the elderly and children, they breed blowback from said impoverished kids who grow up fed the opposite of American exceptionalism. (books we may well have supplied, I might add) Simply, it is a foolish foreign policy. The effects are great and not often seen for a period of time.

ETA: Not to mention that Iran is not seeking nuclear warfare capabilities. They are part of the NPT and they have purposes for their admitted nuclear activities. (medical radioisotopes, energy etc.) Also, you can't prove a negative. They say they don't have WMDs, we say they do. What, do we have to invade Iran to determine definitively one way or the other? Yellow cake Uranium rings a bell.

It aint our damn business if they were concentrating U235 for weaponry anyways. Israel is more than capable. The propaganda runs deep... and I'm very much getting tired of debunking it.

ah, don't bite. I'm in agreement

edit: My response was to, what should we do if someone did it to us. Not what devastation we are doing as the big bully.

So I ask if our sanctions on Iran were instead imposed on us, do you think military action in that country is justified? If so, who or what exactly do you attack/destroy?

I not only think our military response is justifiable (not to be confused with justified, depending on what the circumstances truly are) I think it would occur before the ink on the sanctions dries. Who would we attack? For starters those who imposed said sanctions. It is hard to compare apples to oranges. We are a global superpower. No one can impose the kind of leverage like we do with regards to other countries joining our sanction demands. Especially not Iran.

ETA: I am not trying to be antagonistic if my posts come off that way. My apologies if I do.

Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 02-04-2013 at 12:11 AM.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

Originally Posted by AuH20

In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.

Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

New Zealand won't let US Military vessels visit because they won't declare whether they are carrying nukes or not.

The US has responded with broad economic sanctions. Not particularly bad ones, but yeah the US likes to get its own way.

Well, that's the story. A Free trade agreement would require the US to end subsidies to farmers as New Zealand stopped subsidies ages ago.

So that's not going to happen.

Last edited by idiom; 02-04-2013 at 12:13 AM.

In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

It's important to remember that sanctions, in this context, amount to import taxes, which harm the domestic consumer. US consumers benefit from EU tax subsidies to Airbus, just as EU customers benefit from US subsidies to Boeing. When the EU imposes sanctions on goods imported from the US, it is harming itself. Retaliating in kind would be the height of stupidity.

Trade sanctions, when they consist of a blockade, are an act of war. Trade sanctions in the form of import taxes are only an act of violence in the same way as any other taxes.

That's an easy question. The tried and true international response is usually... blowback.

In the case of a superpower like the USA responding to sanctions, typical asymmetric warfare roles are reversed and need not apply. Why dance around with prolonged economic heckling that might take decades to resolve when the enemy could just be physically obliterated and history books re-written as necessary? (Then again, maybe a peaceful solution would be required in case another superpower was the opponent!)